Dear Secretary General of the Council of Europe, dear President of
the Parliamentary Assembly, dear colleagues, members of the Assembly,
ladies and gentlemen, above all allow me to sincerely congratulate
Ms Stella Kyriakides on her election to the high position of President
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am glad
that this event has practically coincided with my visit to the Assembly.
Such symbolic junctures do not happen that frequently, yet when
they happen they are always accurate and timely. Today that is exactly
the case. I personally wish you inspiration, energy, and success
in achieving the noble mission set by the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe, as well as protecting the principles upon
which this Assembly is founded. There is no place for compromise
in these matters, especially with those who by all means intend
to compromise the universal value and foundations upon which we
build up our co-operation and our societies.

I would also like to express my words of gratitude for the
invitation to address this distinguished Assembly. It is a true
honour for me. As a former colleague in the Assembly who spent many
years here, I remember that time and remember the importance of
the Parliamentary Assembly, and perfectly understand the responsibility that
lies upon your shoulders, especially under the current circumstances
of extreme populism, numerous cyber-attacks, direct armed aggression,
and very aggressive propaganda campaigns. As the President of Ukraine,
I sincerely count on your support of my country in these dramatically
difficult circumstances.

Now, we find ourselves, Ukrainians, occupied against our will.
Three years ago, I stood here before this Assembly and already as
a head of State shared with you our experience from the very first
day of countering Russian aggression. I would sincerely wish to
address you today with the words that the aggression against my
country is over, that within the internationally recognised borders
of Ukraine the military action and the blatant occupation of parts
of our sovereign territory are over, and that in Ukraine peaceful
life gradually returns to the liberated lands depleted by the military
action of those who keep saying, “Nas tam nyet” – “We are not there”.
They are the occupying power.

Unfortunately, even three years after my statement before
the Assembly, we still have not reached this perspective. We are
well aware of the reason why. Dear members of the Assembly, has
something changed over these three years in Russian deeds and behaviour?
Absolutely nothing. Today, as three years ago, we are forced to
keep searching for the response to the Russian aggression – the
aggression which turned into the brutal attack not only against
Ukraine but against human rights in the very heart of Europe. The
Russian Federation keeps, bluntly, violating commitments taken upon
itself, in the same way that Moscow keeps ignoring our persistent
demands, and the demands of the international community, to get
back to respecting international law.

This Assembly has echoed these demands and fixed them in a
number of its resolutions. But the Russian Federation keeps pretending
that it has nothing to do with this. Moscow continues to turn a
blind eye to its commitment under the Minsk agreement. Its military
forces are still on the territory of Ukraine, both in Crimea and
in Donbass. Military assets are still delivered to illegal entities
created by the Russian Federation. Every day, we receive more worrying
news about the blatant violation of human rights in the occupied
territories. Release of the hostages and political prisoners is
stalled. I cannot but mention Oleg Sentsov, Alexander Kolchenko,
Roman Suschenko, and many, many others. For over two years we have
fought to free 63-year-old Igor Kozlovsky, the very famous theologian
who remained in occupied Donetsk to look after his ill son. The same
goes for 28-year-old Stanislav Aseyev, a journalist who was not
afraid to write the truth about life in occupied Donetsk. Such stories
of Ukrainian hostages number well over 100 already. But even worse
is the fact that the number of hostages in Donbass does not cease
to rise. People are deliberately chased and captured only for the
fact that they are a citizen of their own country – of the Ukrainian
state. They are captured with a cynical reason in mind – to blackmail
Ukraine, which will never abandon its citizens, neither in Crimea, nor
in Donbass, nor in a Russian prison.

Systemic repression has turned the Crimean peninsula into
an island of no freedom and a land of fear. In occupied Crimea,
the Russian Federation applies the worst practice of the Soviet
repressive machine. Anyone who dares to reject the so-called reunification
with the Russian Federation becomes a victim of arbitrary detention,
prosecution, torture, extra-judicial execution, and inhuman treatment.
Recently a deputy head of the Mejlis, Akhtem Chiygoz, received the
so-called verdict of the occupation authorities. He said that today
in Crimea those are tried who defended the laws of their country,
the international norms and the rules. Could anyone give more precise
words describing the situation in Crimea than Akhtem Chiygoz in
his final statement in so-called court? This concerns not only Crimea
but Europe as a continent of the rule of law, not the rule of force.
The case of another deputy head of the Mejlis, Ilmi Umerov, is also
telling. At first, this hero of his people experienced Russian punitive
psychiatry. This day, an occupation court has sentenced him to two
years in the settlement colony. The piercing chill of Soviet mock
trials creeps from this sentence.

The scale of the crime and violation committed by the occupation
authorities in Crimea demonstrates that the Russian Federation,
which is recognised as an occupying power by the United Nations
General Assembly, clearly ignores its international legal commitments.
In this context, allow me to express my gratitude for the particular
attention that the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe
itself pay to the issue of Crimea. Numerous appeals of the Council
of Europe monitoring bodies on human rights to access Crimea are
all telling, as was an unprecedented decision by the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe on the situation in the autonomous
republic of Crimea made in the city of Sebastopol, Ukraine, and
adopted this May.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me once again to ask my question.
Has something changed over the three years since my last statement?
Definitely, yes. The international coalition in support of Ukraine
and the rule of international law has only strengthened, and I am
grateful to the honourable members of this Assembly for their solidarity
in protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression from the very beginning.
The people of Ukraine will always remember the hand of support extended
to us by our friends in the most difficult moment of our history.

Exactly a year ago, this Assembly adopted a resolution on
the political consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine,
which states, “only significant and measurable progress towards
their implementation can form the basis for the restoration of a
fully-fledged, mutually respectful dialogue with the Assembly.”
The Assembly rightly reserved the right not to renew the credentials
of the Russian delegation if the Russian Federation continues its
occupation of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. In fact, none
of the demands was implemented by the Russian Federation.

It is not just about the implementation of routine documents.
Behind the provisions of those documents are human faces and human
lives. Hence the resistance to returning to business as usual with
the Russian Federation in the Assembly and every other international
political platform. At this challenging moment, let us be frank
with each other and with ourselves. The aim of Russian aggression
is to destroy democracy, liberal freedom and human rights. In one
place it does it with tanks, and in other places it does it with
absolutely fake news; in one place it violates the key principles
of international law, and in other places it manipulates consciousness.
We have no right to fail against that challenge. We will prove our
dignity, and in recent years members of the Council of Europe have
experienced the delicacy of the Russian Federation’s information warfare.
More than once, we have seen the language of hatred, violence and
discrimination hidden beneath the slogans of free speech. The Russian
Federation tries to use our own achievements against the democratic community.

In 1950, Winston Churchill, an ideological father of the Council
of Europe, appealed to the Assembly against the background of the
Soviet Union’s challenge to a democratic Europe. He admitted that
Moscow had a wealth of opportunities to create trouble. Given the
circumstances, he said something very important about the prospects
of this Assembly, “Either we shall prove our worth and weight and
value to Europe or we shall fail.” With those words of wisdom in
mind, I strongly reject what some say about a fait accompli on Crimea.
This tribune was not invented to call for appeasement or for the
trade of territory for money, oil or gas. That has never happened.
It was invented to safeguard our fundamental values and principles,
and most importantly to defend them at times of need.

The time has come. Moscow has pushed Europe back to the same
reality about which Sir Winston Churchill was so concerned almost
70 years ago. That is why the guarantee of our success resides in
preserving and strengthening our unity, solidarity and resilience.
It is only by respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Ukraine that we can achieve peace and stability in Europe. Ukraine
strives for peace, as does everyone in this Chamber. As head of
State, I want peace for Ukraine and for Europe.

Those are not mere words. Ukraine has proved on numerous occasions
its readiness for a peaceful settlement of the situation artificially
created by the Russian Federation. Ukraine, and me personally as
President, has initiated a long-lasting ceasefire three times in
2017 – the Easter ceasefire, the harvest ceasefire and the back-to-school
ceasefire. Russian occupation troops and their proxies violated
those ceasefires almost straightaway.

Last week, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a law establishing
the condition for peaceful settlement of the situation in the Luhansk
region of Donbass. We hope that the Russian Federation will finally
begin to implement the security commitment and the Minsk agreement,
and we also expect those steps will allow us to move forward on
the deployment of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Donbass,
which is important to bringing peace back to my country.

I call on the honourable Assembly to continue paying attention
to the respect for human rights in occupied Crimea and occupied
Donbass. Only with our close attention to those regions will we
ease towards prosecutions. I thus call on Assembly members, the
Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General, the Commissioner
for Human Rights and other relevant monitoring bodies to double
their efforts in protecting human rights and freedom.

I return again to my question. Has something changed in the
three years since my last statement? Definitely yes. Ukraine has
made considerable progress on internal transformation. Despite the
existential changes caused by Russian aggression, this year we celebrate
the 20th anniversary of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms entering
into force in Ukraine. Ukraine continues to implement those commitments
as a member State of the Council of Europe while adopting the Council
of Europe’s standards on human rights, the rule of law and democracy
in its legislation, institutions and practices.

Last week, we laid another firm brick in our human rights
defence wall by ratifying protocols 15 and 16 of the Convention.
I am grateful to the Council of Europe, including this Assembly,
for actively supporting the reform process in Ukraine. The scope
of reform currently being undertaken in Ukraine is quite broad.
It ranges from the unprecedented financial and banking reform –
we are cleaning our financial and banking system, making it strong
and reliable – to the decentralisation reform that Madam President
mentioned. That decentralisation was one of my first steps as President,
and we are now seeing the first results. The development budget
for local communities has increased between seven and 10 times during
the war, and local budgets and the structure of the united budget
is, step by step, reaching 50%.

Looking back at Ukraine’s accomplishments, I am particularly
pleased that the Council of Europe’s 2015-2017 action plan for Ukraine
has become a common story of success. I am proud that the Council
of Europe is a co-sponsor of Ukrainian reform, and we have made
progress through the joint work of Ukraine and the Council of Europe.
We hope that the draft 2018-2021 action plan will be even more ambitious
and successful, and we consider it a tool for further progress and
reform.

For us, internal transformation is no less important than
the Russian front. I cannot but mention the anti-corruption measures
undertaken by my country. We have established unprecedented anti-corruption infrastructure
and anti-corruption mechanisms, which are absolutely independent.
We have created the important national anti-corruption bureau, a
specialised anti-corruption prosecution office and an independent national
agency for preventing corruption, which is investigating ministers,
members of parliament, local governors and a long list of public
servants. The system has already brought positive results, and we
now hear more often about criminal cases.

However, the fight against corruption is not about criminal
prosecution alone; more important is the establishment of an effective
system to prevent this disease, which eroded Ukraine for years following independence.
The launch of a system of electronic declaration of the income,
expenses and financial obligations of public servants has become
one of the most effective tools in the fight against corruption.
That measure does not exist in other countries, but it provides
efficiency and is perhaps one of the world’s most ambitious government
initiatives regarding transparency and accountability before society
and its voters.

We pay particular attention to the deregulation and minimisation
of the influence of public servants, including with the use of new
technologies. The introduction of the ProZorro electronic platform
– a totally new and transparent public procurement system – is a
brilliant success story. The communications strategy aimed at preventing
and countering corruption has also been adopted, and it provides
for a routine anti-corruption culture in society. One could reasonably
ask whether the anti-corruption glass is half empty or half full.
My answer is that it is exactly half full.

The next strategic priority is further to build up the judiciary,
and the renewal of social trust in Ukraine. I am sincerely grateful
to the Council of Europe for its constant support for that most
important reform, which we jointly started back in 2014. The amendment
of the constitution regarding the judiciary was adopted with the expert
assistance and valuable support of the Venice Commission in 2016,
and we implemented every single word of that commission’s recommendations.
There are also new laws on the judicial system and the status of judges,
the high court council of justice and the constitutional court,
and new procedural codes were adopted just a few days ago. Over
the next few days, they will come to the presidential office to
be signed, and all that has happened in less than three years. As
the Venice Commission pointed out recently, such reforms are clearly
aimed at reconstructing the Ukrainian justice system in accordance
with the standards of the Council of Europe, and at securing the
rule of law in Ukraine. That tectonic shift has permitted us to
fill the judicial system with new substance, and provided the opportunity
for us to build a truly independent judicial branch of power, based
on European standards.

A complete reshuffle of the judicial system is under way.
It started with the unprecedented re-launch of the supreme court
under my initiative. Today Ukraine’s highest judicial institution
is being set up from scratch via open competition and with the active
participation of civil society. Among the winners of the competition
for the post of judges in Ukraine’s new supreme court are lawyers,
legal scholars and human rights advocates who have never previously
worked as judges, as well as the best judges from all over Ukraine.
They have passed a strict and thorough selection, including professional
and psychological tests, as well as checks by the national anti-corruption
bureau and the national agency for preventing corruption. Of course
they must still prove their capabilities in practice, but it should
be the best composition of the supreme court in Ukraine’s modern
history. The high council of justice decided to submit 111 candidates
to be new judges at Ukraine’s supreme court, and I will fulfil the
process in the appropriate manner.

According to new rules, the launch of the new supreme court
and the entire judicial system will become the point of no return
for judicial reform and the successful steps that we have taken
within that framework. I know that the creation of the anti-corruption
court requires special attention. The creation of such a court is
envisaged by law, and I submitted to Parliament measures on the
judiciary and the status of judges that were adopted last year.
The Venice Commission welcomed that initiative, and mentioned the
need for a clean, independent, and efficient anti-corruption judicial
body. We are currently considering the optimal way to establish
that vital institution, but obviously we must not lose the substance
of the reform behind the name.

Efforts invested in the establishment of the anti-corruption
court will be successful if four elements are taken into account:
first, legislation that complies with the Ukrainian constitution;
secondly, independent, politically neutral and unbiased members
of the commission should select the judges; thirdly, we need candidates
who meet the highest standards of professionalism and integrity;
and finally, the newly created court should enjoy the full trust
of society. Today, there are some questions about the quality of
the draft laws pending in Verkhovna Rada, and particularly about
measures on the establishment of an anti-corruption court that have been
submitted by a number of members of parliament. Those provisions
seek to restore significant influence over the formation of the
anti-corruption court to political bodies such as Verkhovna Rada,
the Minister of Justice, and the President, and that gives rise
to concern. All judicial reform initiated by me sought to create
a court system that is completely independent of politicians.

Recent expert opinion from the Venice Commission clearly points
out that political influence over the formation of the anti-corruption
court is unacceptable because it contradicts European standards
and the concept of constitutional reform built on the principle
of maximum depoliticisation of the judiciary. That is why all democratic
political forces and civil society must unite and work together
with international experts to prepare professional, new and consolidated
draft laws that are passed by Parliament. The main task for Ukraine
is not only to establish the anti-corruption court, but to ensure
fair legal proceedings within the framework of a unified and renewed
system of justice.

Today, the entire judicial system in Ukraine must be anti-corruption
in nature. That is an absolute prerequisite for the restoration
of social trust and the strengthening of social unity. We count
on the further support of this Assembly for the strengthening of
civil society in Ukraine, based on the implementation of democratic standards,
support for cultural diversity and the building up of social institutions.

In that regard, I draw the Assembly’s attention to the unreasonable
politicisation of the law on education. My stance on education is
clear: the nation’s future and security demands quality education
and therefore that area should be reformed. Apart from being a significant
part of the educational reform, the adopted law has become a law
of equal opportunities for each stakeholder in the educational system.

Let me be clear: opportunities must be equal for all pupils,
regardless of their origin, residence or nationality. It is unacceptable
that children who belong to national minorities in Ukraine do not
have an adequate knowledge of the Ukrainian language, which is needed
for further education and in universities or institutes, and which
is necessary for a professional career, public service, and self-realisation
in Ukraine. The law intends to fix that problem. The Ukrainian Parliament
has envisaged an improvement in students learning Ukrainian as part
of pre-school and primary education, with a view to creating conditions
for studying at a higher level in an official language. At the same
time, the law safeguards the right of students to learn their native
languages at the required level.

I remind the Assembly that the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages was adopted in Strasbourg 25 years ago. It
stipulates that all commitments related to national minorities should
be implemented without prejudice to the teaching of the official
language or languages of the State. I believe that the provision
of this charter should be applied by all signatories. I reassure
you that there would be a guaranteed language right in accordance
with the national legislation and with international commitments
and standards, including the right to study in a native language.

At the same time, we will provide adequate teaching of the
official language, Ukrainian. The best proof of this commitment
is our decision to submit the respective article for assessment.
It was my instruction to the minister for education and the minister
for foreign affairs to send it for the independent assessment of
the Venice Commission. I believe its conclusion will lift the controversial
interpretation of the law, which is aimed to ensure a decent place
for all the national minorities in an integrated Ukrainian society.
I am confident that we will implement this assessment of the Venice
Commission in our new legislation about education.

There is hardly a more evident example than Ukraine of a nation
that has to fight wars on two fronts at the same time – the front
of countering external military aggression and the restoration of
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the front of implementing
difficult and complex reform. They say it is impossible to provide
and implement reform in the time of war. Ukraine is now an example
that not only is this possible, but we can do it in an absolutely
responsible way.

The turning point was the Revolution of Dignity in late 2013
and early 2014. It is symbolic that, on the margins of my visit
to Strasbourg, I will inaugurate the star for the heavenly hundred
at the Strasbourg alley of stars. It will be a star for those heroes
of the Revolution of Dignity who sacrificed their lives for our
right to build a new country on the European model, who took the
European future of Ukraine as their reason for life, their motivation
to struggle against a former regime, and their aspiration for change
and transformation in our country. By inaugurating a star for the
heavenly hundred, we will commemorate their contribution to the
history of Ukraine and of Europe. It is our common duty regarding
their memory and sacrifice to be in both France and Ukraine to strengthen
common values in a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe. I believe
this will come true thanks to our unity and solidarity. I thank
you for this unity and solidarity. I thank you for your attention, your
support and your confidence in our country.

Thank you
Mr President for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have
questions they would like to put to you. I remind them that all
questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues
need to ask questions and not make speeches.

I will allow one question from each of the political groups
first. I call on Mr Korodi from the EPP to pose their question.

Mr KORODI (Romania), spokesperson
for the Group of the European People’s Party

Thank
you Mr President. We had sufficient information on Crimea so this
is our second question. We followed closely the latest development
in your country generated by the recent law on education, which
limited the right to education in the mother tongue of national
minorities. As Council of Europe members say, you should abide by
the commitments assumed upon your accession, including internal
protection of the rights of national minorities, why did you promulgate
this law despite the criticisms expressed by your neighbourhood
countries and international European institutions and NGOs, having
significant ethnic communities in your territory?

Mr Porochenko, President of Ukraine

Thank you very much indeed for that question. To start with
the law on education, our education system vitally needs reform.
This is an investment in our future. Ukrainian schools have a great
achievement. We want to modernise them to the current world standard.

Article 7 of the law criticised by some of our European partners
intends to improve the use of the Ukrainian language in all spheres
of public life, as well as the guaranteed free development of the
views of national minorities. But imagine if pupils finishing at
British, German or French schools cannot speak English, German or
French? How will they survive in those countries? Can you imagine
that 75% of graduates that finish school in Deregovka fail the test
on the Ukrainian language? They simply do not understand the language.
How can they go and survive in the country – go to work, use public
services and continue the institutions in Ukraine? This is definitely
discrimination for these children.

We do not have a single word against national minority languages.
We would be happy for them to learn them. We already create this
opportunity. We only ask them, please learn Ukrainian. This protects
the rights of these children and protects them from discrimination.
That is why we are absolutely open. We sent the draft law for assessment
by the Venice Commission. We are ready for dialogue and ready to
implement the results of the assessment in a practical law about
secondary education. We specifically did not develop and vote on
the law on secondary education because we are awaiting the results
of the assessment. This is our readiness for co-operation.

Let me give you my own examples. I was born in Bolhrad in
the south of the Odessa region – the centre of the Bulgarian minority
in Ukraine.

(The speaker continued in Bulgarian.)

I speak Bulgarian.

(The speaker continued in English.)

Then I moved to the city where the Romanian minority lives.

(The speaker continued in Romanian.)

I also speak Romanian.

(The speaker continued in English.)

I then worked in Kiev with our Polish colleagues.

(The speaker continued in Polish.)

I also speak Polish.

(The speaker continued in English.)

I also fluently speak English.

(The speaker continued in Russian.)

Of course, I can speak Russian extremely well.

(The speaker continued in Ukrainian.)

I obviously also speak Ukrainian.

(The speaker continued in English.)

This creates a unique opportunity. That is what I want to
see among our national minority regions: to be bilingual or trilingual,
the same as in any other country. Is anybody against that?

We have in Article 7 a guarantee for the children who learn
European languages – not only English and French, but Hungarian,
Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian and others. At the end of their fifth
year of study, up to 60% of their education would be a national
minority language and 40% would be Ukrainian. In the 12th year of
study it would be a different proportion – 40% would be a national
minority language and 60% would be the official language. It would
not only be national minority languages, but some disciplines would
be presented in a national minority language.

This is the law we are talking about. We should depoliticise
the discussion and have clear and friendly co-operation. We are
open to this co-operation. I asked a member of my Government – the
Minister for Education – to come here to Strasbourg. They had a
very long discussion. If necessary, Minister Hrynevych is happy
to meet you, to listen to you and to implement steps to address
every single thing that worries you. We are open. We are European.
We meet the criteria of all the conventions. Together we can solve
any problem, including this one.

Ms BARNETT (Germany), spokesperson
for the Socialist Group

Thank you very much for your
interesting presentation, President Poroshenko. What internal, domestic
political difficulties do you think still affect your implementation
of the Minsk agreement, particularly with regard to the Donbass?
What is standing in the way of a political solution and what will
you do to bring about one?

Mr Porochenko, President of Ukraine

Thank you for your question. This is extremely important in
better understanding the current situation. In February 2015 and
September 2014, we signed up to the Minsk agreement, which has two
parts: a security package and a political package. From the political
package, Ukraine voted for the amnesty law and for the special order
for some regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. We voted in Parliament
on the line that defines the occupied territory, and we should implement
this law, and we voted for the constitution on first reading. We
have implemented 95% of the political package.

As for the security package, from the Russians we are waiting
first and foremost for the ceasefire. We have not had one single
day without firing and we have paid the highest price for that.
More than 2 700 Ukrainian soldiers and more than 7 000 civilians
were killed in this war. We demand a ceasefire as point No. 1. Point
No. 2 is the withdrawal of all the foreign troops, including Russian
troops, from the occupied territory. That is their obligation under
Minsk. Can you imagine any political process taking place when we
have occupying troops in the Donbass? Can you imagine any election
meeting OSCE criteria or any democratic standards under the occupation
of the Russian army and Russian proxies? With 45,000 people with
arms in their hands, can you imagine a free and fair election? Nobody
would have the opportunity to run a campaign with the participation of
Ukrainian political parties, Ukrainian media and the Ukrainian election
commission. There would be no participation with anything. It would
be the same as the fake referendum in Crimea and the fake election
in 2014. That is why we demand the implementation of the security
package, please. We demand uninterrupted access for the special
monitoring mission of OSCE observers to all the occupied territories,
including the border. We demand the release of all hostages. Everything
is now in the hands of one person: Putin. That is why our solidarity
and unity is vitally important.

As a demonstration of our decisiveness, last week I, as President
of Ukraine, introduced two very important laws to Parliament. One
was on reunification of the country and the other was on the continuation
of the special order law, because when we voted on that in 2014,
we thought everything would be finished in 2017 and that this territory
would be reintegrated into Ukraine, but nothing has happened. The
law will continue for another year. I thank all my Members of Parliament
who voted in support of my proposal. It is a very bright demonstration
that Ukraine is united and capable of implementing all its obligations.
The only things we need are unity and world solidarity, and responsible
behaviour from the Russian Federation.

When I was in New York we agreed a very important initiative
involving the Blue Helmets – the United Nations peacekeepers – under
the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. How could anybody
be against that? It would secure the territory, because at the very
next moment every Russian soldier who is on that territory would
be brightly presented to the world community. We need to insist
on that. We need peace in my country. We need to stop killing Ukrainians.
We need to restore law and order. This is a vitally important question
for me, and I again thank all the Assembly for the very strong support
you have demonstrated during the last year. It has been vital for
us, so thank you.

Ms GILLAN (United Kingdom), Spokesperson
for the European Conservatives Group

President, on
behalf of the European Conservatives I congratulate you on an astute
and forthright speech to our Assembly today. Without a solution
to the illegal actions of the Russian Federation in Crimea, their
actions will poison European relations for years to come. How would
you view, under the highest international scrutiny of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Union, the possibility
of another referendum in Crimea with three choices: to stay with
Ukraine; to stay with the Russian Federation; or to be semi-independent
under United Nations supervision? Could you accept such a referendum
and could you abide by the will of the people?

Mr Porochenko, President of Ukraine

Thank you very much for those encouraging words. I am ready
to accept anything that is adequate for the Ukrainian constitution.
Under our constitution we can have local and national referendums.
Territorial integrity and sovereignty is the competence of national
referendums, but before we talk about anything, Crimea should be
returned to Ukrainian sovereignty. We would then be ready for any
negotiation and to launch any democratic process under the Ukrainian
constitution. If Crimea is under the illegal annexation of the Russia
Federation, which happened in spring 2014 and has been confirmed
by all the international documents, it will be impossible because
it is under occupation. Can you imagine a referendum in the Czech
Sudetenland in 1938? This is the same: it is impossible to hold
a referendum under the barrels of Russian tanks. It would not be
a referendum and would have nothing to do with democracy. Crimea
should be returned to the Ukraine.

By the way, we are not selling or buying Crimea. It is not
a question of money, gas, oil or anything else. It is about law
and order in Europe and security in Europe and the whole world.
After illegal annexation of the Crimea, the Russian Federation completely
destroyed the whole post-war security system established under the
United Nations Security Council, where the Russian Federation is
one of the P5 members. The Russian Federation, together with the
United Kingdom, the United States, France, and China was a guarantor
of our sovereignty, territory and integrity under the Budapest memorandum,
when the Ukraine voluntarily gave up the third biggest nuclear arsenal
in the world. Do you think that the Russian Federation would have
attacked us if we had nuclear weapons? I doubt it. But this is not
a question of us demanding the nuclear weapons back. On the contrary,
we think that the system of non-proliferation is the way to global
security. That is another reason why we need unity and solidarity
with the whole civilised world. I thank you and I thank Britain
for the strong support for our sovereignty.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg), spokesperson
for the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Mr President,
welcome back to the Council of Europe, where I had the honour and
the pleasure to receive you three years ago.

In your remarkable speech, you referred to combating corruption,
which is one of the greatest challenges, among others, that you
have to fight. You also referred to the Venice Commission, which
said that the provision has to be withdrawn and that you now have
to introduce a new text to create an anti-corruption body. You said you
are going to do that. Do you have the majority in the Verkhovna
Rada to give effect to that request? Do you have the right people
to implement that important law afterwards?

Mr Porochenko, President of Ukraine

First, I want to thank you personally, and the Assembly, for
the very warm welcome given to me, my country and my people three
years ago. I remember that and thank you for your hospitality and
your strong and firm position.

I definitely think that we have a majority for the anti-corruption
court as a symbol. Unfortunately, as you know, in parliament, the
devil is in the detail. That is why it is extremely important that
I want to have the votes of the whole parliament – all members;
we are not talking about the coalition. Corruption is a cancer in
any country. They should find a compromise, present it to me, and
I will be immediately ready to initiate that draft law. We should
work hard, but again, we have done a great job in the last three
years to create such anti-corruption institutions that never before
existed in our world, which is extremely important. I give the example
of electronic declarations. All members of parliament, all ministers
and all governors have to declare how many lamps, candelabra and
pots they have in their homes. The price of being a public servant
is being transparent. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which
even today is investigating and arresting ministers, has full independence.
Now, we should concentrate efforts to help parliament find a compromise
with the Russian Federation.

I strongly believe in my parliament. It has done a great job
on all the reform and I am absolutely confident that it will find
an opportunity to vote on and to implement the anti-corruption court.
I would remind you that the first mention of the term anti-corruption
court in Ukrainian legislation was in my draft law, which has been
voted through and has already come into force. That is why I am
completely optimistic on that.

I want to thank the Venice Commission once again, because
it plays a very important role in judicial reform. Every draft law
is assessed by the Venice Commission and it is very important that
we have that trust. We trust the Council of Europe and the Venice
Commission, and they trust us. That is a unique form of co-operation.

Mr KOX (Netherlands), spokesperson
for the Group of the Unified European Left

Mr President,
in 2014, you said to this Assembly that the only way out of the
crisis in Ukraine was via peaceful dialogue. When we visited you
in Kiev a year later, in 2015, with the Presidential Committee,
you repeated that idea: peaceful dialogue, no military solution
possible. It is now October 2017 and still the peaceful dialogue
with the citizens in the east of your country has to start. You
put the blame on the Russian Federation, and they bear a huge responsibility, but
where is your responsibility to finally do what you promised – to
start a peaceful dialogue with the citizens of your country to find
an end to this horrible crisis? I look forward to your answer.

Mr Porochenko, President of Ukraine

Look, since our meeting in 2014, Ukraine has delivered two-thirds of
occupied Donbass. In every single town and village where we do not
have Russian troops, believe me, we have a fantastic dialogue. We
do not have one single tiny problem. We are investing a huge amount
of money to restore the infrastructure, with the assistance of our
partners. I visit Donbass every month, opening schools, bridges,
roads and kindergartens. We have a fantastic dialogue there.

Can you imagine any dialogue in the occupied territory? The
only pre-condition for that dialogue is the withdrawal of Russian
troops. We do not have any tiny conflict. From the very beginning,
the Russian Federation wanted to present the situation as a civil
war, but I am proud that we now have a full list of evidence about
the Russian presence, Russian hybrid war, Russian propaganda and
Russian provocation. It is not just a few thousand people, it is
several million people, who now live in a disastrous humanitarian
condition, with a disastrous level of unemployment, with disastrous
conditions for the elderly, with limited access for children to education
and with a disastrous level of poverty. People hate the idea of
continuing to live under those conditions. That is why our co-ordinated
position is vitally important, with the implementation of the Minsk agreement
and its security package. I am absolutely confident that when we
have peacekeepers – the Blue Helmets – and the security pre-condition,
we will immediately do the same as we have done in Sloviansk, Lisichansk,
Kramatorsk and in many, many other cities including Mariupol, where
we have restored law and order and have a fantastic dialogue with
the local communities. There is not any single reason for disturbance. That
is why our unity and solidarity is so important.

The PRESIDENT

Thank you,
Mr President, for your comprehensive address and for updating us
on the advancement of the reforms in Ukraine. We particularly appreciate
your country’s efforts to reform the judiciary, to fight corruption
and to guarantee the highest ethical standards, as well as to promote
decentralisation. Your views on the way forward for a peaceful settlement
of the conflict in Donbass are also very important. For there to
be peace, stability and respect for human rights, violence and fighting
must stop. It is therefore very important to ensure full implementation
of the Minsk agreement.

On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you most warmly for your
address and for the answers given to questions. I wish you and Ukraine
every success. Thank you.